Make a Donation

Subscribe to Our Feeds

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0488 Thursday, 21 May 1998.
[1] From: Ben Schneider <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 20 May 1998 12:57:59 -0600 (CST)
Subj: Chess Game in Tempest
[2] From: Tony Haigh <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 20 May 1998 11:17:17 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 9.0483 Q: Whitehall
[3] From: David Evett <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 20 May 1998 15:51:37 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 9.0480 Re: Female Roles
[4] From: Alexandra Gerull <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 20 May 1998 17:49:50 +0000
Subj: Re: Roasted Crabs
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Schneider <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 20 May 1998 12:57:59 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Chess Game in Tempest
Peter Hadorn's students point is well taken. From a Stoic point of
view, which I argue is the only point of view for Shakespeare, the two
most disruptive passions in human beings are lust and anger. Prospero
finally controls his anger with Ariel's (reason's) help, and the two
beautiful people who are giving the tired old world a new start, control
their lust.
Yours ever
BEN SCHNEIDER
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tony Haigh <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 20 May 1998 11:17:17 -0400
Subject: 9.0483 Q: Whitehall
Comment: Re: SHK 9.0483 Q: Whitehall
There were three Banqueting Houses in Whitehall. We know the "masques
and mummeries of Elizabeth took place in the Whitehall tilt yard
(opposite the present building). Inigo Jones presented his first masque
in the original building in 1605. James I had that building demolished
in 1606 and replaced with a building that was essentially the same, but
this time constructed in stone. This building was destroyed by fire in
January of 1619 and Jones (now Surveyor of the King's Works) promised
the new building would be ready by Christmas of 1620. However, it was
12th Night of 1622 before the first performance in the new building. The
Rubens ceiling is painted on nine huge flat panels. So to answer Robert
Applebaum's question - they are flat, not concave.
The paintings were finished in 1634 and transported to England in a
rolled-up form. Rubens, by this time was 57 and in ill health. He did
not supervise their installation. Because masque performances required
extensive use of candles the King banned further performances once the
ceiling was in place for fear of smoke damage. Because the canvasses
were so big they began to sag so in 1830 Sir John Soane had them removed
and mounted on laminated board. They were last cleaned and restored in
1972.
I was lucky enough to attend a performance there in 1996 when my
daughter's school joined with the English National Opera company to
recreate the rehearsal process and first performance of Purcell's "Fairy
Queen." This event was sponsored by the Goldsmith's Guild. It was
wonderful to hear the acoustics of the space and to see how comfortable
it was to play there. Have any other of us seem performances in this
space? How did it work for them?
Cheers,
Anthony R. Haigh
chair-Drama Program
Centre College
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Evett <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 20 May 1998 15:51:37 -0400
Subject: 9.0480 Re: Female Roles
Comment: Re: SHK 9.0480 Re: Female Roles
David Kathman did not call Ed Taft an Oxfordian; he said that the kind
of argument raised by Ed following James Forse is like the kind of
thinking that characterizes the Oxfordian arguments. Such arguments
have these features: (1) They oppose the orthodox consensus within
academic culture (boy actors in early modern plays; William Shakespeare
of Stratford-upon-Avon as author of those plays and poems). (2) They
repudiate, destabilize, or ignore the existing documentary evidence
(actual adolescents recorded as playing women's part; Shakespeare's name
on titlepages, theatrical documents, etc.) on which the orthodox
position primarily rests. (3) They place heavy weight on absent or
erased or otherwise negative evidence (lack of character list
identifying adolescent actor as Cleopatra or whatever; lack of list
showing Shakespeare as graduate of Stratford grammar school). (4) They
raise objections to the orthodox position (inability of adolescents to
play major roles persuasively; inability of tradesman's son to write
persuasively about aristocrats) that may not be susceptible to
refutation by existing documents but that can be challenged by plausible
inference or analogy (various documented successes by adolescent
performers in major roles; Keats).
These issues may seem trivial to some members of the list. But
Oxfordian-type thinking is not limited to questions of literary
authorship and the composition of the early modern theatrical company;
it shows up in flying saucer mania and other conspiratorial
theories-AIDS, the (anti)Holocaust, the Kennedy and King
assassinations-where its long-term affects may be socially as well as
intellectually pernicious. It needs to be interrogated.
Dave Evett
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alexandra Gerull <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 20 May 1998 17:49:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Roasted Crabs
In reply to Stanley Wells:
I don't think the question at issue here is whether annotated versions
of the play can be bought or not. Along with two explanations came the
hint to go and see such an edition in a somewhat milder and friendlier
tone. The question at issue seems to be which requests for help are
acceptable on this list and which are not (to you and to the other
members). The query was made by someone working on the film "Dead Poets
Society" if I remember correctly. Everyone who has ever attempted to
analyse a film (even the most mediocre Hollywood B_movie) will know how
much work goes into this. Say, this was a check on a detail. And it was
solved efficiently if not scholarly correct. It took me about two
minutes to get the two plays down from the shelf and check what the
notes had to say. Some minutes more to type the reply. Yet, before I put
the plays back on the shelf I thought about the two passages for a while
which I would not have done otherwise. So apart from being able to help,
I got the idea for what sounds like a very nice recipe for cold nights
and another little Meisterstueck from Mr. Shakespeare, something I must
have read but never noticed several times.
To sum these somewhat rambling thoughts up:
1. Pointing out that the person asking should go look it up in the
proper books ( and consequently offering to send such a book) is - in my
humble view- extremely snobby.
2. Does this list intend to shut some people out from its discussion of
Shakespeare? If so, what are the criteria for such an exclusion?
3. Am I still able to see a chance to learn something myself in helping
and conversing with others or am I already absolutely perfect and
everyone beneath me level of knowledge. And now I'm off to Normandy, to
try some very good apples (crab or not) indeed.
Alexandra Gerull